Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians | 214 comments (214 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Economics is a form of policy discourse. Whether it is a constraint or not, or honest or not, depends on context.

by santiago on Thu Jul 12th, 2012 at 05:33:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can a policy discourse be scientific unless it models reality accurately?

Er - no.

So any pretence at science when a discourse has been repeatedly falsified is clearly dishonest.

As for constraints - as I said, ask the Spanish, the Greeks, the Irish, and the German workers if they feel their rights to a reasonable livelihood and a lack of nonsensical financial drama are being politically constrained.

If that's not clear enough, I'll put it more bluntly - economics as used in contemporary statecraft is simply a barefaced lie used by one class to justify the theft of time, creativity and resources from the other classes.

It has no scientific or empirical basis whatsoever. It's simply a blunt stick used to beat working people and bring them to heel for nakedly self-interested political reasons that have no connection whatsoever with their immediate or future prosperity or welfare.

And if the working people ever work this out, they're going to be really, really angry.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Jul 12th, 2012 at 06:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (3.00 / 2)

Social science is not "science." Rather it uses scientific methods to organize thinking, so that participants in its discourse can keep track of the veracity of claims, warrants, and reasoning being made. It is a way of improving the honesty of political discourse precisely because it allows a method for pointing out when people are lying or mistaken about things. It does this through forcing arguments into falsifiable hypotheses that allow for evidence to be presented.

Scientific methods are naturally very limited in policy discourse because so many of the parameters that matter most for deciding things in social life are unobservable by their nature, such as values, aesthetics, and the meaning of life -- the things which Ludwig Wittgenstein famously said that science must remain silent about.

by santiago on Thu Jul 12th, 2012 at 08:15:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (4.00 / 2)

Social science is not "science." Rather it uses scientific methods to organize thinking, so that participants in its discourse can keep track of the veracity of claims, warrants, and reasoning being made. It is a way of improving the honesty of political discourse precisely because it allows a method for pointing out when people are lying or mistaken about things. It does this through forcing arguments into falsifiable hypotheses that allow for evidence to be presented.

Even by this standard neoclassical economics is unfit for purpose, because it intentionally obfuscates when people are lying or mistaken about things, and systematically refuses to acknowledge when its falsifiable hypotheses are falsified.

Really existing neoclassical economics is a systematically dishonest enterprise.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jul 13th, 2012 at 05:57:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 1)

JakeS:

Really existing neoclassical economics is a systematically dishonest enterprise.
- Jake

word...

it is the legal waterboarding of whole societies.

"It's very hard to see what is kept invisible" Roseanne Barr

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Jul 13th, 2012 at 07:55:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

I don't see any systematic attempt to obfuscate or refuse to acknowledge when hypotheses have been proven false. The papers and the data to check them are all there for everyone to see after all.

Rather, I do see an unfortunately high number of idiosyncratic cases where individual economists refuse to admit when their hypotheses have been proven lacking, but there is nothing in the methods themselves which cause this. If there was a problem with the methods, it could be labeled systematic, but this is a case of individual faults, not system faults, and it is prevalent in all social sciences. The heavy use of math in economics is what allows us to point it out more easily in economics, which is exactly how it should be and why math is so useful in economics.

by santiago on Fri Jul 13th, 2012 at 12:31:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 1)

I don't see any systematic attempt to obfuscate or refuse to acknowledge when hypotheses have been proven false.

You can get equilibrium-based macroeconomic models published in purportedly respectable journals.

It has been a full century since the Walrasian approach to economics was conclusively demonstrated to be intellectually and practically sterile. Persisting in promulgating it is systemic obfuscation and refusal to acknowledge falsification.

Rather, I do see an unfortunately high number of idiosyncratic cases where individual economists refuse to admit when their hypotheses have been proven lacking, but there is nothing in the methods themselves which cause this. If there was a problem with the methods, it could be labeled systematic, but this is a case of individual faults, not system faults,

The fact that falsification of economic equilibrium, model-consistent expectations, Say's Postulate, loanable funds, long-run money neutrality (and indeed the whole of the neoclassical long run) is not assimilated by the peer review process is a systemic fault, and a systemic dishonesty.

Publishing things you know or should know are nonsense is not honest just because it is possible for outside observes to take the time to dismantle the farrago of lies. In fact, this particular dishonest tactic has a name: The Gish Gallop.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jul 13th, 2012 at 04:41:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 1)

things which Ludwig Wittgenstein famously said that science must remain silent about.

Wittgenstein wasn't talking about science, he was talking about philosophy.

Wittgenstein to neoclassical economics: just just up.

Then again, famously Piero Sraffa managed to change Wittgenstein's mind about language and logic.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 13th, 2012 at 05:59:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

Wittgenstein was talking about philosophy in the most general sense, including natural philosophy, i.e., science, and its uniquely helpful language for making and warranting truth proposition statements -- mathematics. Specifically he argued, and remained convinced for the most part, that the most important parts of questions about morality and God, like aesthetics, were not amenable to truth proposition language because truth proposition statements about such matters were nonsensical. (E.g., "Does beauty exist?" is a nonsensical question.) While the language of math and the methods of science might be illuminating (and they might be confounding as well), they can never be decisive in determining truth from falsehood in such matters, so the implication for economics and other social sciences is that, unlike in the natural sciences, you can't rely on mathematical models and observation alone to make what are essentially moral arguments. The sin of the neoclassical approach is that its practitioners too often use math to claim they have discovered right from wrong, when such a use of mathematical language is nonsensical.

by santiago on Fri Jul 13th, 2012 at 11:50:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

On the other hand, I'm just now finishing reading Keynes' treatise on probability and it's a wonderful development of the idea that probability is a branch of logic... And of course he does apply it to moral philosophy (haven't read that bit yet).

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 13th, 2012 at 12:44:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

Did you actually work through all the math? I decided that it probably wasn't worth the effort to figure out a nonstandard notation that I'd never see anywhere else. Was I wrong?

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Fri Jul 13th, 2012 at 01:45:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 1)

Well, he uses

x|h

for the usual

P(x|h)

I've been skipping most of the algebra anyway, the book is more about the philosophy of probability as far as I'm concerned.

But I like reading historical works. The book could be written in half the length today - you could delete an entire chapter just by saying "probabilities are partially ordered".

I haven't given much thought to what his non-numerical probabilities are, that are in < and > relations with numerical probabilities nonetheless...

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 13th, 2012 at 01:50:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

Policy economics is propaganda, not social science.

Rather it uses scientific methods to organize thinking

Quite.

so many of the parameters that matter most for deciding things in social life are unobservable by their nature, such as values, aesthetics, and the meaning of life

And power. Especially power. Except when it becomes visible after people stop believing the lies about it.

Incidentally, there are scientific theories of personal and social values and aesthetics, with falsifiable premises.

(But I wouldn't expect someone who works on the management board of a bank to know that.)

Oh - and did you just attempt to imply that economics is about the meaning the life?

Really? How interesting.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Jul 13th, 2012 at 06:33:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

ThatBritGuy:

Oh - and did you just attempt to imply that economics is about the meaning of life?

with your usual unerring accuracy, you have lasered in on the nub.

it damn well should be, as we have given it the power to be so destructive.

"It's very hard to see what is kept invisible" Roseanne Barr

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Jul 13th, 2012 at 07:36:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 1)

Yes, economics is, first and foremost, a branch of moral philosophy, which, unlike natural philosophy -- science -- which attempts to describe what can be observed about the world, moral philosophy is ultimately about discerning the meaning of life and its implications for how to create a just society.

by santiago on Fri Jul 13th, 2012 at 12:34:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (4.00 / 3)

Actually economics is equally dishonest when it pretends to be a branch of moral philosophy.

Firstly, moral philosophy is only tangentially related to meaning. The only honest position on the meaning of life is that no one knows and it's impossible to know in principle. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.

So morality becomes a political and utilitarian issue - which it always is.

But you cannot go from there to claiming that economics - which even at its broadest is about one small subset of all possible human relationships - can ever provide a complete moral picture.

In practice of course economics claims to be moral - as in discussions of moral hazard, etc.

But in fact it's simply political misdirection. It attempts to frame the discussion of human relations in one specific way, while denying validity to other kinds of human relation.

The concept of 'rational self-interest' is immensely poisonous. It's also easily falsifiable behaviourally.

Non-sociopaths relate to others with mutuality and reciprocity. As a moral theory, economics has no useful concept of either.

So where is your morality now?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Jul 13th, 2012 at 12:51:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 1)

Nothing in economics, whether it's Marxian, neoclassical, or whatever other approach, denies the validity of other kinds of human relations. Rather, economics is the study of the material aspects of human society, which is a very important part of the overall question of the meaning of life of how to go about creating a just society. Mutuality, reciprocity and rational self interest are entirely consistent concepts.

by santiago on Mon Jul 16th, 2012 at 09:17:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (4.00 / 3)

And naturally you will have no trouble pointing to the many examples of the IMF, the ECB, of the dictators installed and propped by Wall St, and of the entire financial industry using their fine understanding of mutuality and reciprocity to better the lives of working populations across the world.

A revised and empirical version of economics might - one day - be a useful tool for equitable democracy.

Currently it's nothing of the sort, in much the same way that a black widow spider bite isn't a good cure for indigestion.

Pretending that it is is dishonest and utterly shameful.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jul 16th, 2012 at 09:29:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 1)

Right. Just like I won't have any trouble finding moral failings in the history of Roman Catholic Church or any other school of thought dealing with the study of morality, social justice, and the meaning of life.

by santiago on Mon Jul 16th, 2012 at 09:36:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

Some of those schools of thought have useful and relevant things to contribute to society.

The insights of neo-classical economics which are both true and interesting can be counted on one hand. With fingers left over.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jul 23rd, 2012 at 10:26:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment (none / 0)

ThatBritGuy:

they're going to be really, really angry.

they already are... so far there still lacks the channels to express it.

the dam's still holding, but the riots last year were the tip of that rage's iceberg.

"It's very hard to see what is kept invisible" Roseanne Barr

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Jul 13th, 2012 at 07:54:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Neokeynesians vs. Postkeynesians | 214 comments (214 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Newspeak to English pocket dictionary

Quantifying Utopia: A UBI Calculator for the USA

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants - Europe and the Mongol...

Rail News Blogging #24

Simple Solar Principles

Ferguson hates on Keynes

The Brussels Consensus: economic disaster in EU candidate...

Recent Diaries

Simple Solar Principles

Quantifying Utopia: A UBI Calculator for the USA

Newspeak to English pocket dictionary

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants - Europe and the Mongol...

Rail News Blogging #24

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

The Brussels Consensus: economic disaster in EU candidate...

Origins of German Neo-Austerianism

Ferguson hates on Keynes

Dionysian revels: Nice, May Day 2013:

Anglo Or Not, It's A Disease

The UK and the Euro

Free Energy: Solar and Dynamo LED Keychain Lights

Kruganomics 101

Gold

Corporate Profits and Aggregate Demand

VC Investment: Then and Now

An Ambush of Wishful thinking and Cargo Cult law.

The Intellectual Foundations of Austerity destroyed

Spring is Sprung - Photoblog

Occasional Series